First of all.....tell me what is "the nature of God"? Whose god and which of your two or three? Describe, from your mind, the appearance of your god?
Since the subject was your religious fears, I'm not sure why you're asking me this. As for the request for the "appearance of God", I don't have one. But since you asked about the nature of God - first from the Bible:
God is spirit - John 4:24 Meaning he's not a being of the material universe. But he "became flesh" - John 1:14. And he did so out of love for mankind - John 3:16-17. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he began, 'Our Father' - Matthew 6:9 showing that God loves mankind as a father loves his children. 1 John 4:8 says God IS love. David likened God to a shepherd in the 23rd Psalm and as did Jesus in John 10 and Luke 15, again showing a being deeply concerned about his created beings. Both righteousness and mercy are God's characteristics - Psalm 89:14 and that psalm begins with a paean to God's love.
This is all from the Bible and is a small bit of what can be gathered there. But I don't think that impresses you, though if you are really a curious broadminded person you should be open to studying it for yourself. Anyway, I'll point out that natural discoveries of the past century confirm a couple things:
12) The universe is designed in a very particular and exact way such that living things could come into existence (see anthropic principle or fine-tuning of the universe). If you look up fine-tuning in wikipedia, they say there are about 26 or so natural parameters (like the size of the universe, the strength of natural forces, etc) of the universe that have to be almost exactly what they are in order for life to exist. They're wrong, there are a bunch more than that. But regardless of the number of such parameteres, science has given us two choices for explanation of the origin of our fine-tuned universe:
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.
discovermagazine.com
Yep, according to Discover magazine, science's alternative to an intelligent designer/creator is an infinity of imaginary invisible (to us) universes each of which is different (though why they should each be unique is not known but its a necessary part of the hypothesis) from the other. I submit that a belief in God is more rational than a belief in an infinity of hypothetical universes that for some reason are all different from one another.
2) Science has also revealed that life is based on complex specified information encoded in chemical bonds presenting us with a problem of how an information coding scheme could begin naturally ie. devise itself (can a book or software devise a language - coding scheme - and write itself). Furthermore science tells us that life originated only once during the several billion year history of the earth (since all life is based on the same coding scheme) further supporting the idea that it isn't possible for this to happen naturally, for if it were it surely should have happened numerous times over earth's history and would be happening even now. One of our greatest information theorists (and thats what the origin of life is, an information theory problem), Hubert Yockey, has written that life couldn't have originated naturally (Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life).
.... the idea that life arose from some Urschleim (primeval slime). Not only does Yockey show that this theory cannot be true, he explains exactly why, using mathematical certainty. First, he shows, applying Information theory to Crick's Central Dogma, that because the flow of information can only pass from larger encoding alphabets to smaller ones, but not the other way around, it is impossible for the information which fills the genetic code to have proceded from proteins (the smaller alphabet) to DNA/RNA (the larger alphabet). Ergo, it is equally impossible for any proteins-first theory of life origin to be correct - simply on that basis. Because what matters is not so much the DNA itself, in the scheme of life's continued existence, but the information it contains!
Next, he offers what may be the best summation of evidence in print to show that there simply is no scientific basis whatsoever to conclude that anything like Darwin's "warm little pond" ever existed. But he goes much further, taking evidence from fossil records as to the nature of the earth's atmosphere during the time the Urschleim was presumed to exist, Yockey shows that it is simply not possible chemically for earth to have had the atmosphere that it did and for those ponds to exist. The upshot being, according to cellular biologist and Nobel Laureate Christian Du Duve, without those ponds, the chance of any natural origin of life is zero. Another strength of the book is the facility with which he ties the procedural activities of the genome to information theory, specifically Shannon's Law. The importance here is his insight into the nature of codes. He begins by demonstrating that the genetic code, in its present optimal form, could not have had a natural origin simply because not enough time has existed since the beginning of the universe to allow for it's actuality strictly in terms of processing.
He furthers this with the following quote from one of his earlier works: "The calculations presented in this paper show that the origin of a rather accurate genetic code, not necessarily the modern one, is a pons asinorum that must be crossed to pass over the abyss that separates crystallography, high polymer chemistry and physics from biology.(Yockey, 1981, 1992)" Then quoting from the book directly thereafter, "The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids. There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences. Thus, when we make the distinction between the origin of the genetic code and its evolution, we find the origin of the genetic code is unknowable."
However, Yockey is not arguing for some kind of theistic event. In fact, he takes great pains later in the book to demonstrate that he does not support any theistic conclusion. From his perspective, while it is provably true, based on mathematical certainty, that the genetic code did not have a natural origin, because the universe has demonstrated no ability whatsoever to formulate any kind of code, let alone something as sophisticated as the genome, it cannot be assumed ipso facto that a supernatural event is the only other choice. Because there is no scientific evidence to support that possibility, Yockey is completely unwilling to postulate such, even in off-the-record conversations.
amazon.com
The fact that Yockey isn't a religious person makes his conclusions all the more significant - because the (unwilling or against one's interest) testimony of a hostile witness is more reliable evidence than that of a friendly witness.
Summing up, discoveries of the past century give good reason to believe there is an immensely powerful pro-life intelligence that arranged for us to be here and that happens to be completely consistent with what Christianity tells us. Something it would be foolish to ignore imo.
-----------------------------
Secondly, I don't know a single religious person who is not fearful of offending their god which could relegate them to Hell
You are projecting your fears on to others here imo. Most Christians do NOT have the sort of fear you've described. I think some are and have been. IMO Calvinist theology may promote such a fear among some - see the sermons of Jonathan Edwards.
-----------------------------
.....btw, do you also believe in Hell???
Yes, though not the popular image of it that's probably based on ancient Mediterranean ideas of the underworld in turn influenced by observations of volcanoes in that area. I view it as separation from God. I've heard a description of someone who experienced what he believes was hell in a near-death experience.
----------------------------
Those indoctrinated as children have a very difficult time breaking that fear and many play both ends against the middle as they do begin to think.
No, those childhood fears are not still inside me, long gone
Unh hunh, sure. That's why you're so desparate that Christianity not be true, you've tried on this thread to maintain Jesus didn't even exist. That's why you've displayed on this thread a fear of exposing your eyes to Scripture.
----------------------------
....do you still have them?
No, I don't have the fears you do. I think a better way to deal with your fears would be to confront and overcome the wrong vision of God you were instructed in as a child. That would be better than the denial you show .... there can't be a God, it can't be true, it all has to be a lie.
-----------------------------
re:"What biases and bigotries did you formerly have that are gone now?"
I've already told you some....take my word for it...I know you have a number also.
You know nothing of the sort. You are either projecting onto me or defining my attitudes on moral issues as bigotry.
----------------------------
re:"You're wrong there. You've merely found a way to deny your fears. In fact, admitting your atheism is driven by a desire to free yourself from childhood fears shows that you're NOT objective about this. Be smart enough to recognize that."
Don't try and analyze my thoughts....I do that myself and you have absolutely no idea what I'm thinking unless I tell you
But its what you've told and shown that I'm analyzing. Hard not to. We're talking obvious stuff here.
----------------------------
why I am not a believer...that one is very easy. Didn't take much thinking there.
I agree. Little thinking at all. Emotional driven reaction to fear.
--------------------------
And one does not "admit" atheism... My disbelief came over a period of my formative years during college.... There was no "atheistic experience" like being born again....
My comment on what you admitted was your childhood fear.
--------------------------
FYI, I am not an atheist in the real sense of the word. I allow most religious people to think that so they know I don't believe in their god...... I do not think there is a personal god as you do
Oh, now you're not a real atheist? You just don't believe in a personal God.
Let me ask you. Doesn't the fact that the universe is designed for life mean the intelligence behind the universe WANTS life (and conscious intelligent life) to exist? Why would that be if that super-intelligence isn't "personal" itself?
--------------------------
but I am not as smart as religious people who insist they know that answer but can't prove a damn thing and look stupid doing it.
Its good to be humble about our ability to understand things. But in heaping scorn on others beliefs, you don't seem that humble.
-------------------------
So don't tell me to "be smart", try thinking yourself sometime, it can be exciting and very satisfying.
Thanks. I do.
-----------------------------
re:"What does that have to do with your childhood faith and your atheism?"
It has nothing to do with religion or atheism... I'm just telling you I am not encumbered in my thoughts by church teachings... Instead, I have deep interest in other countries religions and cultures and visit other places whenever I can... I've seen a lot of things I doubt you spend much time thinking about.
I doubt you know more about other cultures and religions than I do. You don't even know much about the faith of your own culture as evidenced by the ignorant statements you've made about the NT. How curious can you be when you haven't explored it? One would think a curious person would be willing to explore one's own cultural background - there's as much richness here as you can find in other faiths and cultures. |
